Navigating the highlights of phase III trials: a watchful eye on evidence-based radiotherapy

International audienceBackground: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of evidence-based oncology. However, there is no exhaustive review describing the radiotherapy RTCs characteristics. The objective of the present study was to describe features of all phase III RCTs including at least a radiation therapy. Methods and materials: Requests were performed in the Medline database (via PubMed). The latest update was performed in April 2016, using the following MESH terms: 'clinical trials: phase III as topic', 'radiotherapy', 'brachytherapy', as keywords. Results: A total of 454 phase III RCTs were identified. Studies were mainly based on open (92.1%) multicenter (77.5%) designs, analyzed in intend to treat (67.6%), aiming at proving superiority (91.6%) through overall survival assessment (46.5%). Most frequently studied malignancies were head and neck (21.8%), lung (14.3%) and prostate cancers (9.9%). Patients were mainly recruited with a locally advanced disease (73.7%). Median age was 59 years old. Out of 977 treatment arms, 889 arms experienced radiotherapy, mainly using 3D-conformal radiotherapy (288 arms, 32.4%). Intensity-modulated techniques were tested in 12 arms (1.3%). The intervention was a non-cytotoxic agent addition in 89 studies (19.6%), a radiation dose/ fractionation modification in 74 studies (16.3%), a modification of chemotherapy regimen in 63 studies (13.9%), a chemotherapy addition in 63 studies (13.9%) and a radiotherapy addition in 53 trials (11.7%). With a median follow-up of 50 months, acute all-grade and grade 3–5 toxicities were reported in 49.6% and 69.4% of studies, respectively. Radiotherapy technique, follow-up and late toxicities were reported in 60.1%, 74%, and 31.1% of studies, respectively. Conclusion: Phase III randomized controlled trials featured severe limitations, since a third did not report radiotherapy technique, follow-up or late toxicities. The fast-paced technological evolution creates a discrepancy between literature and radiotherapy techniques performed in daily-routine, suggesting that phase III methodology needs to be reinvented

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lumiliximab in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab alone in subjects with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Lumiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets CD23 on the surface of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) B-cells. Early phase clinical studies with lumiliximab alone and in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) established its potential efficacy and tolerability. The 152CL201 trial [Lumiliximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) versus FCR alone in subjects with relapsed CLL; LUCID] was a phase 2/3, randomized (1:1), open-label, multicentre study of lumiliximab in combination with FCR versus FCR alone in patients with relapsed CLL. Six hundred and twenty-seven patients were randomized to either arm. Overall the combination of lumiliximab with FCR was not significantly better than FCR alone (overall response rate 71% vs. 72%, complete response rate 16% vs. 15%, median progression-free survival 24.6 vs. 23.9 months respectively, for FCR with and without lumiliximab). There was a slightly increased incidence of adverse events with lumiliximab but these increases did not appear to lead to differences in eventual outcomes. An interim analysis failed to show sufficient efficacy of the combination of lumiliximab with FCR. The study was therefore stopped early for lack of efficacy. Despite the eventual outcome, the LUCID trial is one of the largest studies that provides valuable insight into the efficacy and tolerability of FCR as a therapeutic option for patients with relapsed CLL

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lumiliximab in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab alone in subjects with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Lumiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets CD23 on the surface of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) B-cells. Early phase clinical studies with lumiliximab alone and in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) established its potential efficacy and tolerability. The 152CL201 trial [Lumiliximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) versus FCR alone in subjects with relapsed CLL; LUCID] was a phase 2/3, randomized (1:1), open-label, multicentre study of lumiliximab in combination with FCR versus FCR alone in patients with relapsed CLL. Six hundred and twenty-seven patients were randomized to either arm. Overall the combination of lumiliximab with FCR was not significantly better than FCR alone (overall response rate 71% vs. 72%, complete response rate 16% vs. 15%, median progression-free survival 24.6 vs. 23.9 months respectively, for FCR with and without lumiliximab). There was a slightly increased incidence of adverse events with lumiliximab but these increases did not appear to lead to differences in eventual outcomes. An interim analysis failed to show sufficient efficacy of the combination of lumiliximab with FCR. The study was therefore stopped early for lack of efficacy. Despite the eventual outcome, the LUCID trial is one of the largest studies that provides valuable insight into the efficacy and tolerability of FCR as a therapeutic option for patients with relapsed CLL